Evidence Of Injured Witness Has Greater Evidentiary Value, Their Statements Can’t Be Discarded Lightly: Supreme Court

While dismissing the appeal pleas of two murder convicts, the Supreme Court of India reiterated certain important principles on the appreciation of oral evidence of injured eye witnesses during the trial stage.

“The evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly”, a Bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dulia and JB Pardiwala stated.

Further, the presence of an injured eye-witness at the time and place of the occurrence can’t be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his deposition. Also, unless established by the evidence, it must be believed that an injured witness would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused. Adding on, it said that the evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions.

The Court was hearing an appeal of two murder convicts challenging a judgement of the Bombay High Court upholding the sentence imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune. The judge had convicted both the appellants for offences under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860

After a verbal altercation, the appellants along with two other co-accused who were acquitted by the Session Judge, assaulted the first informant PW 1 Asgar Shaikh on his head by means of weapons like sickle and sword. After, a severe assault was laid on the deceased Abbas Baig with a sickle and sword. The prosecution alleged that the appellants had dangerous weapons in their hands in the form of a sword and sickle. Baig suffered serious injuries on his body and ultimately, succumbed to death.

Before dealing with the factual and legal aspects, the Bench stated that the appreciation of ocular evidence is a hard task. “There is no fixed or straight-jacket formula for appreciation of the ocular evidence”.

Certain judicially evolved principles for appreciation of ocular evidence in a criminal case are:

• While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth
• When eye-witness is examined at length it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies. But courts should bear in mind that it is only when discrepancies in the evidence of a witness are so incompatible with the credibility of his version that the court is justified in jettisoning his evidence
• By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident.

The Court viewed that the oral evidence of the three eyewitnesses in the case are consistent and reliable.

“The oral evidence of all the three eyewitnesses is consistent and there is no good reason for us to disbelieve the ocular version as narrated by the three eyewitnesses…”

The Bench further pointed out that the Top Court, normally would not interfere with the concurrent findings of fact, except in very special circumstances or in the case of a gross error committed by the courts below.

“Only where the High Court ignores or overlooks “crying circumstances” and “proven facts” or “violates and misapplies well established principles of criminal jurisprudence” or refuses to give benefit of doubt to the accused persons, etc., would this Court step in to correct the legally erroneous decisions. We are also not to interfere only for the reason that we may arrive at a different conclusion, unless, of course, there are compelling circumstances to tinker with conclusions drawn and that the accused were innocent/guilty.”

Applicability Of Exception 4 To Section 300 IPC

While dealing with this aspect, the Court relied on the principles enumerated in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rayavarapu Punnayya and Another which laid down the distinction between murder and the culpable homicide.

Explaining this, the Court opined that the exception 4 to Section 300 IPC can be invoked in if death is caused (a) without premeditation, (b) in a sudden fight, (c) without the offenders having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner; and (d) the fight must have been with the person killed. To bring a case within Exception 4, all the ingredients must be found, the Court said.

The Court, noting the extent of injuries suffered by the deceased and relying on the deposition of PW 7 Dr. Shrikant (who carried out the post mortem), opined that the accused had used dangerous weapons while assaulting the deceased.

“Having regard to the nature of the injuries caused by dangerous weapons like sickle and sword which, were applied on the vital part of the body, there is no escape from the conclusion that it is a case of Section 302 of the IPC”, the Court held.

While dismissing the appeals, the Court cancelled the bail(s) granted to the appellants and ordered to send them to judicial custody to serve their sentences.

Abhikalp Pratap Singh, Adv along with Ms Yamini Singh Adv & Ms Shreya Saxena Adv appeared for the State of Maharashtra

Case Title: Balu Sudam Khalde And Another Versus The State Of Maharashtra | Criminal Appeal No. 1910 Of 2010

Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 279

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment